I had itchy psoriasis all over my back so went to the dermatologist. Doc gave me two treatment options.
Option 1: Start applying expensive immune system suppressing drugs to my back to control the itch.
Option 2: Change my diet by eliminating GMO food.
Obviously I chose to go organic. A year later, all traces of psoriasis are gone.

Yes, after years of eating genetically modified foods my intestines were shot. My gastroenterologist took me off regular food and put me on organics.
Nothing like bowel urgency to make you change your ways!

I have psoriasis (severity varies over time) on one elbow and one knee.
For a while I was taking methotrexate (dirt cheap medication) for
arthritis, and the psoriasis went away. Now that I'm no longer on
methotrexate, the psoriasis is back.
Perce

The author seems to be partially misinformed. She starts
by saying the problem is not GMO crops but then goes
on to say the problem is Roundup herbicide. Roundup is
patented by Monsanto, which also has a patent on their
GMO grains designed to tolerate high levels of Roundup.
It's a marketing dream: They sell the poison and they
also sell the patented, GMO seed that can tolerate it.
There's a common misconception that GMO is inherently
toxic. GMO only means that a gene has been changed in
a laboratory rather than by cross breeding. The bigger
concern with GMO is the motives, and thereby the results.
Altering genes to produce toxin tolerance is an idiotic use
of GMO.
(The current ability to patent living organisims is, of course,
another big problem with GMO. Farmers get stuck buying new
seed from Monsanto every year and can be sued for patent
infringement if they manage to get any saved seed to sprout!)
Excessive chemicals is also not just a wheat problem or
a GMO problem. The industrialization of farming has been
increasing for a long time. There are always people who think
they can apply the "better mousetrap" approach to crop
yields. I picked apples as an itinerant worker in the late
70s. During the two years I was at one farm they changed
their approach to "weeds". The old approach was to harvest
the grass growing between the trees and sell it as hay to
local farmers. Then the farm was bought by a multi-national
corporation that wanted the operation streamlined. Selling hay
locally requires human relationships. They bought an herbicide
sprayer instead. The second year I worked on that farm there
were only shrivelled shreds where the grass had been, and a
lot of unnecessary herbicide in the soil.
I buy only organic bread, but I've noticed it's getting harder
to find. Many of the companies that made it have stopped
without explanation. I had once bought a brand named
"when pigs fly" that came, I think, from Saco, ME. Suddenly
they just stopped using organic flour. There are also some
"high end" bakeries where I live, in the Boston area, but they
seem to have no curiosity about organic. Whole Foods recently
stopped selling organic corn tortillas and I had to find another
source. While organic produce is becoming more popular, organic
grains are becoming hard to find. I find it nonsensical that
people and stores focussed on fresh, healthy food wouldn't
eliminate non-organic from grain products, of all things. They're
a daily staple food for most people.
On the other hand, I'm not much impressed by the story of
the man who got indigestion eating dinner rolls in restaurants.
How did he know it was the rolls? The kind of restaurants that
routinely put out a basket of "dinner rolls" -- typical chain,
"family" restaurants; the same places that offer a strach option
of "rice pilaf" -- do not deal in edible foodstuffs. They
deal in making money by selling a "dining experience". No
wonder he gets indigestion!

I'm not so sure about that. Cross breeding and grafting involves
similar plants. Peaches, plums, and the like can be modified that way.
My understanding (right or wrong) is that GMO food can have perhaps a
wheat gene replaced by one from a fish or other species. If that is
true, I'd rather not partake of the results.
As for motives, there is only one. Money.

| > There's a common misconception that GMO is inherently
| > toxic. GMO only means that a gene has been changed in
| > a laboratory rather than by cross breeding. The bigger
| > concern with GMO is the motives, and thereby the results.
| > Altering genes to produce toxin tolerance is an idiotic use
| > of GMO.
|
| I'm not so sure about that. Cross breeding and grafting involves
| similar plants. Peaches, plums, and the like can be modified that way.
|
Yes, you can't cross breed a sunflower with
a haddock, so I guess GMO is different in that
way. I'm not defending GMO and won't buy
GMO food, for 3 reasons:
1) health concerns
2) patentability
3) nature of the change
I'm concerned about the trend toward
turning the issue into a simple case of whether
or not GMO is healthy. There are tomatoes now
that are altered to be deep red despite being
unripe and tasteless. It's a dumb and sleazy
idea, but not necessarily unhealthy. If it could
be proved that such tomatoes are healthy the
GMO supporters could make their case. But
what the general public is missing are the other
two issues: indefensible alterations and patentability.
There's a problem with supporting deceptive
products. And there's a grave problem with
supporting patentability of life forms. Even if
companies cross-breed peaches they have motivation
to produce the exact same breed via GMO, because
that can then be patented. Monsanto has been
threatening to sue corn farmers for patent
infringement because Monsanto pollen from nearby
farms "might" infect their fields! It's a crazy claim,
but farmers can't afford to fight Monsanto so they
agree to settle by accepting Roundup Ready seeds
rather than go broke trying to fight patent infringement
lawsuits. With the Scalia cartel running the Supreme
Court there's not much hope for humane improvements
in laws like patentability of life forms. It's up to
the public to see through the strategy.

| What happens when Monsanto come for you, claiming you ate their
| patented seeds, so they own you, now!?
|
:) I'm wondering what will happen when we start
editing human embryo genes for new traits. According to
current Supreme Court rulings that baby will be the
patented property of the lab that did the gene tweak.
Where do we draw the line? One can own a corn strain
but not a mouse strain? Or maybe a mouse strain but
not a chimp strain? If a company can patent a custom
chimp then how would we say they can't patent a
custom human... and all its progeny?

Make up your mind. You just told us that:
"There's a common misconception that GMO is inherently
toxic. GMO only means that a gene has been changed in
a laboratory rather than by cross breeding. "
Then you told us the real problem was the use of Roundup
on GMO crops, even though that article was specifically
about using Roundup on non-GMO crops only.

That would seem to be by far the most important issue. So
far, besides hysteria, I haven't seen anything that indicates
there is any health issue.
>There are tomatoes now

Strawman. Let's look at the more realistic example.
There are tomatoes that are acceptable to consumers
that are being sold, but the color isn't great. With
GMO, they can produce a tomato that has a nice color
and has a longer shelf life, making it a better product
that consumers like more. Or maybe they have a
tomato that tastes great, has a good color, but poor
shelf life so it can't be distributed. With GMO,
they improve the shelf life so that it's a viable
product. Now the consumer has a better tasting, nice
looking tomato.
If it could

They are defensible. Getting a good, tasty tomato
to me in winter is one example. Increasing crop yields,
producing more crops to feed the world, keeping market
prices low, is another. Won't someone think of the
starving children?

What exactly is this is deceptive or a "grave problem"? If you
don't want to plant GMO crops, you just buy seed from the many
available sources that are not GMO. And patents don't last
forever, they have a limited life. Some of the Monsanto
patents for example, have
already expired. There is no more "grave danger" here with
respect to patents than there is with any other patent.
And what you completly ignore is that crossbreeding via traditional
method plants are similarly protected by law. Just try taking
a new grass seed developed at Rutgers, reproduce it, sell it
and see what happens. Ruutgers will be after you just as fast
as Monsanto. It's not at all an issue exclusive
to GMO. Whether GMO or via traditional methods, the creators of
new varieties need protection just like someone who creates
a better battery. Why would anyone spend the money
to research, develop anything, if anyone can come along and
copy it?
Even if

They can receive similar protection if it's crossbred.
Monsanto has been

FYI, the SC doesn't make law. It's just another classic lib
misconception. Now let's look at the recent case that you
appear to be referencing and have totally misrepresented.
The issue is that through cross polination, it's
possible for some small amounts of Monsanto GMO to show up
accidentally on farm "A" which is not using Monsanto products
by being contaminated via a nearby farm "B" that is using legally bought
Monsanto GMO. The other way for Monsanto GMO to show up is if
the farm is regrowing Monsanto seed which is a clear violation
of their patents. One way is innocent and not material, the other
is illegal. So, a collection of farmers, seed producers, etc
brought suit, seeking to *preemptively* bar Monsanto from ever
suing farmer "A" regardless of how the crop got there.
The case made it's way through the courts,
with the Federal Appeals court ruling in Monsanto's favor. Part
of their reasoning:
"Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to pro
hibit Monsanto from suing them should the company's genetic traits end up o
n their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will
not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently con
tain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgeni
c seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"
Further, Monsanto apparently never has sued anyone where their seed
was found inadvertantly:
"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented see
d or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means,
" said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to
Reuters.
If you have an example of where they did, I'd be happy to see it.
So, what you have is a case where the plaintiff wants blanket protection,
barring Monsanto from ever suing them. The appeals court rejected that.
OK, so now it goes to the SC, where you want to make it into a conservative
versus liberal issue. But that falls apart too. The SC refused to hear th
e
case. It only takes 4 SC justices to vote affirmatively to take the case.
The fact that 4 votes couldn't be obtained, tells you that it's
clearly not conservatives alone that thought the case had no merit and
let the appeals ruling stand. The libs agreed.
Just the facts.

Yes I know how to google. Do you? Does M? She's the
one that first said that Roundup was the real problem because
it's used with GMO crops and that it
was a popular misconception that GMO itself was the core problem.
Then she apparently changed her mind and started in with the attack
on GMO itself. Good grief.
Oh and just for the record, I disagree that GMO and Roundup are
both extremely bad. I have 2.5 gallons of glyphosate concentrate
sitting in my garage. I'm going to the supermarket to find some
GMO to buy this morning. Happy now?

Fear not. I don't eat weeds and I don't spray vegetables with it.
From what I know, glyphosate is not used on the typical
garden type vegetables that are produced commercially either. So AFAIK,
whether tomatoes, lettuce, and carrots come from the supermarket
or your local garden doesn't matter with regard to glyphosate.

The author seems well informed to me. The author is
talking about applying roundup to wheat crops
a couple weeks before harvest. It kills the wheat, accelerating
the drying out process so that the small portion that would
normally not be ripe essentially becomes ripe for harvest.
That technique would *not* work on GMO wheat that is roundup
tolerant.

It's commom in the hippie fringe.
GMO only means that a gene has been changed in

Only according to you. I see most people up in arms about
GMO simply because they don't want anything where it's been
genetically modified, period. The countries that instituted
bans on GMO haven't said that GMO is OK as long as you don't
use it to make crops herbicide resistant. They banned GMO
period, even if it;s used to make the crop bigger, tastier,
last longer, etc.
(The current ability to patent living organisims is, of course,

No one is forcing farmers to buy anything. If you want to use
Monsanto products you can use them. If not, you can buy your
seed from anyone else, non-GMO, etc.
Excessive chemicals is also not just a wheat problem or

Funny thing too, how it's worked. We;re getting more yield,
better crops, than ever before. It's feeding a hungry world.
Think of the starving children.
I picked apples as an itinerant worker in the late

I'd probably prefer roundup over you too.

Maybe you should start an online organic foods business.

That is the problem with the referenced article. It's mostly
anecdotal evidence, little science. For example, people give
up wheat, kind of the "wheat belly" craze thing, and then say
how much better they feel. Bingo, Mr. Wheat Belly is right, it's
the gluten! Well, probably not. Because most of them didn't
just cut out wheat. They also drastically reduced refined carbs,
ie cut out a lot of all flour products, sugar, etc. IMO, the
reported weight loss, feeling better in most of those cases is
the result of the reduction in carbs in the overall diet.
As for the case at hand, I'm all for some sound research on
seeing if there are real effects from roundup applied to wheat.

| > No one is forcing farmers to buy anything. If you want to use
| > Monsanto products you can use them. If not, you can buy your
| > seed from anyone else, non-GMO, etc.
| >
A distorted view of "capitalism" is always the last
refuge of the ostrich. Essentially the argument is:
"No one's forcing anybody to *buy* the snake oil.
Can I go back to sleep now?"
| As long as labeling of foods made from those products includes that info
so
| consumers can make their own decisions, that's great.
|
Labeling would be nice, but it's more complicated
than that. Monsanto has sued farmers to force use
of their Roundup Ready seed. At this point, much of
the corn and soy grown in the US is RR. One has to
assume that any corn meal products are RR corn.
(Though I read recently that it may not be widespread
in corn sold fresh as corn on the cob.)
PBS documentary including info about Monsanto lawsuits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food%2C_Inc .
The World According to Monsanto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

Monsanto has sued in two different ways:
1) Trying to force use of their seed by suing farmers who
don't use it, claiming those farmers are infringing their
patent by "allowing" their crop to be infected with RR
pollen.
2) Suing anyone who uses RR progeny. There was a recent
case about that. A farmer bought some soy from a grain
elevator to do an off-season planting, figuring that some
of the soy would be RR and some of that would sprout,
allowing him to heavily use RR on his crop. The court
agreed with Monsanto's claim that it's illegal to attempt
growing plants from seeds that come from RR stock!
If the public doesn't become focussed on the problem
of patented life forms there will be a great deal of
difficulty controlling GMO at all, simply because there
will be so much money to be made by patenting plants
and animals. This is just getting started, yet already it's
hard to buy non-RR processed foods that contain soy or
corn.

Apparently you spend a lot of time sleeping, because you're
incapable of making cogent points and staying informed. What
exactly is the distorted view of capitalism here? There are
GMO seeds available. There are none GMO seeds available, farmers
are free to choose which they want to use. Monsanto develops
GMO seeds and sells them for a profit. Other seed producers
develop hybrids by other means and similarly protect them,
prohibit others from using them without license. They invest
time and money, research, they want to get a return on and
protect their investment. All that is very much a part of normal
capitalism and free markets.

If true, *that* would be a distorted capitalism.
Please show us the case where Monsanto forced farmers
to use their see. I'm betting you can't or that it's
grossly distorted, ie there was some pre-existing contract,
etc.
At this point, much of

So, show us the cases where Monsanto has sued farmers to
force them to use their product. I'm betting it's a lie.
And show us the cases where Monsanto claimed that farmers
were infringing where the crops were only contaminated by
pollen from a nearby farm using Monsanto seed.
Waiting......

Of course they did. It's essential to protecting Monsanto's
investment in developing the seed. Again, you're pretending
that this is unique to GMO. It's not. Try taking some
grass seed developed at Rutgers without GMO, still under protection,
then cultivating it, using the seed for commercial purposes.
The same thing will happen.

You're asleep again. Patenting life forms isn't something new.
It's been going on a very long time. The Haas avocado is a good
example. That was developed and the tree patented back in the
30's. I suppose Mr. Haas, who developed it, should have given
it to the world for free? He patented it, sold it, protected
it and obviously it had nothing to do with GMO. Any other myths
I need to demolish this morning? Good grief.

Did you actually read the article ? And a couple more related articles ?
The wheat is not GMO , nor are they using the glyphosate for weed control .
They're using it to kill the wheat in a manner that increases the yield
while making it all ripen within a narrower window - which also maximizes
yield . The problem is that the not-quite-ripe wheat berries absorb some of
that glyphosate as they ripen .
I've been criticized here and other places for my stand that glyphosate is
implicated in digestive and auto-immune disorders in people , livestock ,
and even in the bees that pollinate treated plants . Why do you think
there's such a market nowdays for "gut bacteria" AKA probiotics ? It's
because glyphosate is also an antibiotic that kills off the natural bacteria
we should have .
That shit ain't good for you .
--
Snag

Hi,
Is there unnatural baacteria when you say natural bacteria?
Gut disease is partly genetic, partly diet and life style.
Gluten in wheat is bad. Sugar is bad, heavy meat eating is bad.
When I hear some one boasting (s)he is steak and potato person,
I hear it as I am stupid.

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.